Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment

May 2019
Social Enterprise Exchange
Summative Assessment

Community Media Solutions SEE Summative Assessment
April 2019
Contents
Executive summary.................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................8
2. Project context..............................................................................................................................11
3. Delivery and Management............................................................................................................15
4. Progress.........................................................................................................................................27
5. Impact ...........................................................................................................................................32
6. Value for Money ...........................................................................................................................39
7. Conclusions and lessons learnt.....................................................................................................42
Appendix: Case studies completed as part of the Formative and Interim evaluation
Contact
Name Evelyn Hichens
Phone (0)7494 449840
Email evelynhichens@carneygreen.com
www www.carneygreen.com

1 April 2019
Executive summary
This report provides a summative assessment of the Social Enterprise Exchange (SEE)
project. The summative assessment is a requirement of the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) and is based upon specific guidance provided by the Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Similarly, this Executive Summary is
structured around the required sections within the summative assessment guidance. The
assessment was based on a range of different research methods including documentary and
data analysis, and consultation with project management, delivery staff, and business
beneficiaries.
Project context
There was a large body of evidence which identified a need for a business support
programme that specifically targeted social enterprises. This included:
• An enterprise deficit in the region (evidenced by a low business density and a low
propensity of the local population to start new businesses or to register for self-
employment)
• The identification of social enterprise by the SCR Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) as an
area for business development that could contribute to strengthened social and
economic inclusion
• Its alignment with the SCR ESIF strategy, specifically its priority for supporting business
growth including new and existing businesses.
• Learning from previous ERDF funded regional social enterprise support projects
(including: Sheffield Community Network (2010-14), Digital Media Exchange (2013-15),
Yorkshire Venture Philanthropy (2012-2015) and Green Incubator (2011-14)).
• The withdrawal of public services, particularly in isolated communities and areas within
the transition region, which had led to an increase in demand for services from social
enterprises.
The project aimed to promote entrepreneurship by increasing awareness of social enterprise
opportunities and reaching out to disadvantaged areas and under-represented groups which
may not have considered social enterprise or had considered it but were unaware of how
and where to access support. It also aimed to support the start-up of new social enterprises
and assist existing social enterprises that demonstrated growth potential. This was
underpinned by three objectives:
1. To increase awareness and understanding of social enterprise in the SCR, with particular
regard to access and opportunity for disadvantaged communities.

2 April 2019
2. To support the establishment of new social enterprises in the SCR, including
independent start-ups, charities establishing new trading arms and public-sector spin-
outs.
3. To support the sustainable growth of existing social enterprisers in the SCR, including
those with high growth potential and larger social enterprises with capacity to expand.
It was designed to complement the SCR Growth Hub offer, and act as an additional ‘spoke’ of
Growth Hub provision, acting as the main conduit for social enterprise support in the region.
There was no other targeted provision.
Project delivery and management
The SEE project was delivered by a consortium of seven specialist social enterprise support
organisations, including and overseen by CM Solutions. The consortium included:
• Groundwork South Yorkshire (GSY)
• Cultural Industries Quarter Agency (CIQA)
• Sheffield Live
• South Yorkshire Community Foundation (SYCF)
• Voluntary Action Barnsley (VAB)
• Community Voluntary Partners (CVP) Bolsover
CVP went into voluntary liquidation in January 2018, and therefore the consortium reduced
from seven to six partners for the remainder of the project lifetime. Partnership working was
viewed positively, however could have been enhanced on occasion by improved
communication (e.g. the timely delivery of minutes, and responsiveness).
67 per cent of respondents to the online survey described the overall quality of the support
provided by SEE to either be of a ‘very high quality’ or to be of a ‘reasonable quality’.
Respondents that were positive about the overall quality of support, and referred to the
Enterprise Coaches being ‘professional’, ‘helpful’, and ‘experienced’.
61 per cent of respondents to the online survey stated that the support they had received
through SEE had either ‘completely met expectations ‘ or ‘partly met expectations’. When
asked what could be improved about the project, enterprises described how there was a
need for a more ‘hands-on approach’, greater clarity of offer, and improved communication.
62 per cent of respondents stated that they would recommend SEE, however, 21 percent of
respondents would not.
The project was made up of four strands, a summary of each strand is provided below:

3 April 2019
• Strand A, Promotion and Pre-engagement: Awareness raising events, knowledge sharing,
peer networking and other activities to develop the social enterprise support pipeline
• Strand B, Accelerate: Start-up accelerator workshops, specialist advice and support, and
start-up grants
• Strand C, Transform: Specialist social enterprise advice, social enterprise incubators,
marketing and promotional support, and development grants
• Strand D, Project management and evaluation: Project management and administration,
and sustainability and independent evaluation
All start-up enquires were offered a two-day intensive workshop programme via Strand B.
Beneficiaries subsequently had access to additional workshops including ‘business planning’
and ‘marketing’, and one-to-one support with Enterprise Coaches. Overall, Accelerate survey
respondents were positive regarding their experience of attending the workshops.
The project positively responded to recommendations made in the formative report and
flexed the delivery approach of Strand B to better meet the needs of beneficiaries. Changes
included revision of the initial business diagnostic to enable Enterprise Coaches to have a
more detailed understand of a beneficiary’s business idea at an earlier stage in the process,
and the forward support strategy being reviewed by another member of the partnership;
helping to support better joint-working, and the delivery of a more effective approach.
The Transform strand provided specialist social enterprise advice to social enterprises which
had been identified as having significant growth and social impact potential. The advice was
considered to be bespoke and was mainly delivered on a one-to-one basis. The support
provided through Transform included:
• building/place-based support (which included advice and support on design, planning
and built environment, and the development of feasibility building options);
• marketing and communications support, including social media support, strategy
development and video productions for marketing and fundraising purposes; and
• general business development support including business modelling, access to finance,
governance arrangements for social enterprise, social impact assessment.
This remit was supported by the consortium, which was made up of partners with a diverse
skill base. There were no significant changes to the delivery approach for this strand over the
lifetime of the project, although examples were provided of support provision becoming
more streamlined and effective.
The project had monthly Project Management Group meetings with the lead representatives
of each partner. There were also subgroups which met on a bimonthly or more frequent
basis for the Promote strand, the Accelerate strand and the Transform strand. Most partners
were happy with the overall management of the project, although some felt that

4 April 2019
communication could have been improved, particularly with regards to responsiveness to
email queries and requests for the pipeline.
Project progress
The project had overachieved the number of enterprises receiving support, and had either
achieved or was close to achieving the majority of the remaining output targets. The project
had not yet claimed any C29 outputs, but it was acknowledged that these outputs take
longer to be achieved.
The project provided output projections to the end of the project lifetime. The projections
are based on a review of the pipeline and throughput to the end of March 2019 and include
grant awards made in the ninth and final grant call in March 2019. The project was set to
achieve or overachieve on all output targets. It was set to considerably overachieve on the
number of new enterprises being supported (C5); and the number of enterprises receiving
information, diagnostic and brokerage support (P13).
Project outcomes and impact
Overall the project had performed well against its logic model and outcome targets. For
example:
• The project had supported an increase in awareness and understanding of social
enterprise in SCR.
• The project had increased access and opportunity for disadvantaged groups.
• The project was set to overachieve on the number of new enterprises supported.
• The project was expected to achieve its output target for employment increase in
supported enterprises.
32 per cent of survey respondents had already increased the number of full time equivalent
(FTE) jobs in the businesses and 48 per cent had safeguarded existing jobs. A further 73 per
cent of respondents expected to increase the number of FTE jobs in the business in the next
year and 56 per cent expected to safeguard existing jobs.
47 per cent of survey respondents had already increased their turnover and 45 per cent had
introduced a new product or service (to the business or to the market).
Since engaging with the SEE:
• 63 per cent of enterprises felt that they had increased skills and capability
• 59 per cent felt they had improved livelihoods
• 68 per cent felt that they had improved health and wellbeing

5 April 2019
• 56 per cent felt they had reduced social or economic exclusion
Considering deadweight, displacement and leakage, the evaluation analysed the gross and
net additional economic impacts in relation to jobs created, specifically to the SCR region.
This is based on the gross impact projected for the lifetime of the project. This analysis found
that the project will directly result in 22 net additional FTE jobs to the SCR region. The
multiplier effects of business support projects like SEE are well established in the research
literature. Guidance refers the use of a low multiplier ready reckoner of 1.3 at the regional
level. Therefore, the total net effect of the project is 29 FTE jobs created in the SCR.
Project value for money
The projected achieved cost per output (ERDF-only expenditure) was £8,715. This was
considerably lower than the profiled cost per output (ERDF-only expenditure) of £11,225.
Therefore, the project demonstrated significant value for money.
The evaluation provided benchmarks from two recent business support evaluations covering
specialist and generic business support. SEE was most similar to Project 1 which provided
sector specific support however Project 1 had a higher cost per business assist output,
£12,671 compared to £8,715. Project 2 had a considerably lower cost per business assist
when compared to SEE however, this project provided generic support rather than the
tailored and specialist support (e.g. building and video marketing) available through SEE
which is more costly.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Specific strengths of the SEE project are summarised below:
• The project responded to a need.
• The design was informed by evidence and partners experience of delivering similar
projects.
• The Launch conference and subsequent roadshow events were an effective way of
generating initial interest in the project and demonstrating that support was not limited
to Sheffield.
• The project was projected to support the creation of 60 new enterprises.
• The project had helped social enterprises increase their presence.
• The provision of building design advice was a unique offer, which often would have been
inaccessible to social enterprises without the project due to cost barriers.

6 April 2019
• The project provided those interested in setting up a social enterprise, and existing social
enterprises the opportunity to network.
• It increased awareness of social enterprise and social enterprise as a business model.
• It had increased access and opportunity for disadvantaged groups.
• The project was delivered by social enterprises.
• Beneficiaries would recommend the project to other social enterprises.
• The partnership had been responsive to feedback from clients and evaluation findings.
• The diverse and specialist skills base of the partners.
• The project supported enterprises to deliver social outcomes.
Whilst the Project overall was a success, the following represents potential improvement
areas:
• There was no cloud-based CRM system.
• Clients were referred between strands but there was not a clear process for checking
businesses were being supported by the organisation they had been referred to.
• Overall marketing and social media presence was intermittent.
• There was a need for more timely information sharing and promotion of events.
• There was varied levels of satisfaction regarding the support received.
• More needed to be done to understand the expectations of clients and how the project
could best meet these.
• There was a need to increase visibility of the project within the Growth Hub.
• The project was limited by the capacity of partners.
• It suffered from a loss of geographical scope due to the demise of CVP which was based
in Bolsover.
The evaluation identified a series of lessons learnt for consideration by three different
audiences, as required within the summative assessment guidelines.
Lessons learnt for the Consortium:
• There was an ongoing need for business support targeted at social enterprises, this was
demonstrated through the size of the pipeline and the steady flow of enquires over the
project lifetime.
• To review activities delivered by the project to ensure that any new project meets the
needs of the enterprises that require social enterprise business support.

7 April 2019
• To map the customer journey and identify and implement processes to support joint
working.
• To gain a better understanding of where beneficiaries are in the business lifecycle early
on, and understand how to best support those at early concept stage.
• Set expectations of support from the outset through action planning and programming
of review meetings.
• Explore the opportunity for beneficiaries providing match-funding for future grant
schemes.
• Explore the opportunity to work with place-based, community organisations through
grants.
• Review opportunities to develop a regional peer support network.
• Consider setting up a tracking scheme, whereby Enterprise Coaches follow-up with
beneficiaries to understand whether they are facing any additional challenges and
whether they require any further support.
Lessons learnt for those designing and implementing similar interventions
• Develop tailored action plans with beneficiaries outlining support and associated
timescales, which progress is subsequently monitored against.
• Launch events help to generate interest and excitement around a project and develop an
initial pipeline.
• When targeting hard-to-reach groups reach-out and develop relationships with grass-
roots organisations that are directly supporting these groups, and be flexible in the
delivery approach.
Lessons learnt for policy makers
• Review restrictions on the time in which grant funding needs to be spent.
• Review quote criteria for grant applications.
• Consider how to best support enterprises with access to finance, networking
opportunities, marketing (specifically social media), and further support to develop their
business plan.

8 April 2019
1. Introduction
1.1 This report details findings from the summative assessment of the Social Enterprise
Exchange (SEE) project. The project was designed to offer a comprehensive programme of
support for social enterprise in the Sheffield City Region. It has been delivered by a
consortium of community-based partners in collaboration with Sheffield City Region Growth
Hub and part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2014-2020.
1.2 The summative assessment is focused on understanding the experience of implementing the
project, the difference it made, whether it provided value for money (VfM), and lessons
which can be learnt. It is stipulated in ERDF guidance that all summative assessments need
to cover the following themes:
• Relevance and consistency: the summative assessment must explore the continued
relevance and consistency of the project, in light of any changes in policy or economic
circumstances during its delivery period.
• Delivery and management: the summative assessment must explore the experience of
implementing and managing the project and any lessons which have emerged from
this.
• Progress: the summative assessment will set out the progress of the project against
contractual targets, any reasons for under or over performance, and the expected
lifetime results.
• Impacts: the summative assessment, where possible, must show the economic impact
attributable to the project, including both the intended and actual outcomes and
impact.
• Assessing value for money: the summative assessment must analyse the cost-
effectiveness of the project in light of its intended and unintended outcomes and
impacts, and hence its VfM.
1.3 Specific details of the SEE project are provided within the ‘Project offer’ section within
Chapter 3.
Methodology
1.4 Carney Green was commissioned to carry out a longitudinal evaluation of the SEE project.
This involved the production of a formative report (produced October 2017), an interim
report (produced October 2018), and this summative assessment report (April 2019).

9 April 2019
1.5 This report draws on findings from the previous two reports and research undertaken
between January and March 2019. An outline of the research activities that were undertaken
to inform this summative assessment is provided below.
Documentary review
1.6 The following documents were reviewed as part of the summative assessment:
• Original ERDF application form
• Project Change Requests
• SEE Logic Model
• SEE output summary
• SEE marketing materials
• Sheffield City Region (SCR) ESIF Strategy
• SCR Growth Strategy
Online Survey
1.7 An online survey was developed to capture the views of the beneficiaries supported by the
project. This covered: how they found out about the project, expectations of support and
whether these had been met, views on the quality of support, impact, and additional
support needs. The link to the survey was disseminated on the 4 March 2019 to all
individuals and businesses who had registered for support with the SEE programme and had
been referred to the Accelerate or Transform delivery strands - it was live for four weeks
with a reminder sent on 20 March and closing on 30 March. This included businesses and
individuals who may not have proceeded to complete a letter of acceptance as the gateway
to business support. Therefore, there may be some responses from individuals that had
registered for the programme but had not received any support. The email was sent to a
total of 517 addresses - there were 25 delivery failures, giving a total of 492 possible
respondents. 46 individuals responded, representing a nine per cent response rate.
Qualitative research
1.8 During the summative assessment, one-to-one interviews were completed with
representatives from the following organisations:
• Groundwork South Yorkshire
• CIQ Agency

10 April 2019
• South Yorkshire Community Foundation
• Voluntary Action Barnsley
• Sheffield Live
• CM Solutions
1.9 Semi-structured topic guides were used to carry out the research, informed by the
summative assessment themes. During the formative and interim evaluation stages
interviews were also undertaken with beneficiaries. There were seven beneficiary telephone
interviews at the formative stage (which led to the production of three case studies), and ten
interviews at the interim stage (which led to the production of five case studies).
Report
1.10 Following this introduction, the report includes the following sections, informed by the
summative assessment requirements:
• Section 2: Project context – covering the original aim and rationale for the project,
policy context and ongoing relevance.
• Section 3: Delivery and management – covering experience of implementing and
managing the project, and lessons which emerged.
• Section 4: Progress – covering project performance, including against lifetime output
and spend targets (considering gross and net performance).
• Section 5: Impact – explores the impact of the project on the businesses engaged and
project partners, and the economic impact attributable to the project.
• Section 6: Value for money – analysis of the value for money that the project provided.
• Section 7: Conclusions and recommendations – covering the project’s strengths and
weaknesses and highlighting specific lessons learnt.

11 April 2019
2. Project context
2.1 This section covers the original aim and rationale for the project, its policy context and its
ongoing relevance.
Background and context
Policy and economic context
2.2 The SCR Independent Economic Review (2013) highlighted an enterprise deficit within the
region, evidenced by low business density and a low propensity of the local population to
start new businesses or to register for self-employment. This was aligned with the findings
from the SCR Baseline Report (Oxford Economics, 2013) which found that the SCR’s poor
economic performance was as a result of “lower levels of enterprise, entrepreneurship and
self-employment, higher vulnerability to long term unemployment, lower rates of labour
market participation, and lower earnings.”
2.3 Social enterprise was identified by the SCR Local Enterprise Partnership as one of the areas
of business development that could contribute to strengthened social and economic
inclusion. A call for proposals for ERDF funding was subsequently announced to deliver a
programme of support for social enterprise. The SEE partners came together in response
with a project designed to respond to these challenges by engaging with areas experiencing
low levels of enterprise activity and with groups facing social and economic disadvantage.
The project also focused on opportunities for social enterprise growth, where key drivers
indicated strong potential for sustainable job creation and supply chain development. The
project was designed to align with the SCR ESIF strategy, specifically the priority for
supporting business growth including new and existing businesses.
2.4 The project aimed to provide a distinctive social enterprise support pathway for the SCR
Growth Hub, acting as a social enterprise ‘spoke’ of the Hub. The application form identified
there was no dedicated SCR level entry point for specialist social enterprise support, and
therefore it was the intention for the project to fill this gap.
2.5 SEE was informed by the experience and findings of previous ERDF funded regional social
enterprise support projects in which partners had been involved with. These included
Sheffield Community Network (2010-14), Digital Media Exchange (2013-15), Yorkshire
Venture Philanthropy (2012-2015) and Green Incubator (2011-14).
2.6 Project partners referred to the withdrawal of public services, particularly in isolated
communities and areas within the transition region, as a factor behind the demand.

12 April 2019
Austerity has increased the responsibility of volunteers and the third sector to deliver local
services. This has created new opportunities and placed additional demand on new skill sets.
Project rationale
2.7 This project draws on lessons learned from previous social enterprise support including:
• the importance of community engagement through diverse communication platforms to
assure reach beyond those already aware of social enterprise;
• The value of peer group exchange and intensive support at start-up stage to accelerate
development, building self-confidence and capacity to deliver;
• The need for bespoke support for social enterprises with significant growth potential
include sub-sector know-how and specialist advice on finance and business models;
• The competitive advantage to social enterprises of using digital technologies, enabling
innovative processes and effective marketing and communications; and
• The importance of small grant funding mechanisms as a catalyst for development,
assisting to leverage other investment, and providing an incentive to engagement.
2.8 The ‘State of Social Enterprise Survey’ (Social Enterprise UK, 2015) identified that access to
funding and finance is a key barrier for those interested in setting-up a social enterprise, and
for existing social enterprises looking to grow. Smaller and start-up social enterprises, in
particular, require smaller-scale, simpler and unsecured investment and also experience
barriers of navigability, accessibility and confidence.
2.9 Partners described how the project was focused on supporting the development and
awareness raising of social enterprise within the SCR. In light of uncertainty around Brexit, a
reduction in local spending, and austerity, partners explained that the project aimed to
support existing social enterprises generate non-grant income, and create more sustainable
business models. As a result, the project was focused on safeguarding capacity, as well as
creating new jobs. Through generating a greater interest in entrepreneurship at a grass root
level, partners described how the project had aimed to increase the awareness of social
enterprise as option for overcoming challenges collectively and at a local level.
Project aim
2.10 This project specifically aimed to support:
• Investment Priority 3a: Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms, including
through business incubators.

13 April 2019
• Investment Priority 3c: Supporting the creation and extension of advanced capacities for
products, services and development.
2.11 The project aimed to promote entrepreneurship by increasing awareness of social enterprise
opportunities and reaching out to disadvantaged areas and under-represented groups which
may not have considered social enterprise or had considered it but were unaware of how
and where to access support. It also aimed to support the start-up of new social enterprises
and assist existing social enterprises that demonstrated growth potential.
2.12 The SEE project had three objectives:
1. To increase awareness and understanding of social enterprise in the SCR, with particular
regard to access and opportunity for disadvantaged communities.
2. To support the establishment of new social enterprises in the SCR, including
independent start-ups, charities establishing new trading arms and public-sector spin-
outs.
3. To support the sustainable growth of existing social enterprisers in the SCR, including
those with high growth potential and larger social enterprises with capacity to expand.
Project Change Requests
2.13 The project was granted Project Change Requests (“PCR”) in May 2017 and December 2018.
The resultant changes to output and overall ERDF expenditure are provided below. The PCRs
together resulted in a slight increase in the C1 target (number of enterprises receiving
support), a reduction in the target for the number of enterprises receiving grants (this was
based around challenges related to Accelerate clients being business ready), and a reduction
in overall expenditure (related to overall delays in initial project implementation).

14 April 2019
Figure 2.1: PCR output changes
Output Original Change
C1: Number of enterprises receiving support 120 125
C2: Number of enterprises receiving grants 60 50
C4: Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support 120 120
C5: Number of new enterprises supported 50 50
C6: Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (grants)
£67,200 £60,000
C8: Employment increase in supported enterprises 60 60
C28: Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to
the market products
10 11
C29: Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to
the firm products
15 15
P11: Number of potential entrepreneurs assisted to be
enterprise ready
100 100
P13: Number of enterprises receiving information, diagnostic
and brokerage support
120 120
Expenditure (ERDF) £1,347,017 £1,262,226
Business support landscape
2.14 The SEE project was designed to complement the SCR Growth Hub offer. The SEE ERDF
application form outlined how the project intended to define the relationship between the
Growth Hub and the SEE project. It also outlined how the Growth Hub was expected to refer
social enterprises to the SEE project, and that the SEE project would refer business support
enquires that fell outside of its scope to the Growth Hub.
2.15 The SCR Growth Hub offers business support across six themed areas, known as ‘spokes’.
These are: access to finance; skills and training; innovation; export; start-up; and growth
demand. The SEE project was considered to be an additional ‘spoke’ of Growth Hub
provision and to act as the main conduit for social enterprise support in the region; there
was no other targeted provision. Some partners felt the visibility of project within the
Growth Hub could have been increased, and the relationship given more structure.
2.16 On the whole, partners felt that there was a continued need for business support targeted at
social enterprises, and commented that this was demonstrated through the size of the
pipeline and by how the partnership had continued to receive enquires about support over
the lifetime of the project.

15 April 2019
3. Delivery and Management
3.1 This section explores stakeholders’ experiences of implementing and managing the project
and lessons learnt, as well as experiences of the enterprises that were supported.
Key partners
3.2 The SEE project was delivered by a consortium of seven specialist social enterprise support
organisations, including and overseen by CM Solutions. The consortium included:
• Groundwork South Yorkshire (GSY)
• Cultural Industries Quarter Agency (CIQA)
• Sheffield Live
• South Yorkshire Community Foundation (SYCF)
• Voluntary Action Barnsley (VAB)
• Community Voluntary Partners (CVP) Bolsover
3.3 CVP went into voluntary liquidation in January 2018, and therefore the consortium reduced
from seven to six partners for the remainder of the project lifetime. The main impact of this
on the project was considered to be a loss of connectivity to that part of the region
(Bolsover). CVP supported the initial promotion of the project through the roadshows and
had been involved in the initial business diagnostic. Groundwork was able to provide
additional support in this area to increase capacity after CVP’s demise, although this was
limited by the distance Groundwork staff had to travel to deliver the support.
3.4 The impact on the consortium was minimised as CVP was not a strand lead.
Partnership working
3.5 On the whole, partners felt that the members of the consortium had worked well together,
however a number referred for the need for communication to be improved between
partners. The need to implement processes to support joint working across the strands was
identified in the interim report, and continued to be relevant during fieldwork for this report.
3.6 Strategic management of the project was maintained through monthly meetings of the
Project Management Group which agreed policies, received monitoring and operational
reports, reviewed risks and approved changes to delivery.

16 April 2019
3.7 Operational management was through Working Groups for the promotional strand (A) and
the two delivery strands (B and C). Some partners felt that this structure resulted in activities
being siloed, despite meetings being held back-to-back and mainly consisting of the same
attendees. This provided opportunities for cross-referrals and to raise issues around
capacity. In addition, CM Solutions managed the pipeline, and would identify further
opportunities for cross-referral between Strands B and C.
3.8 A number of partners felt that partnership working could have been improved by having
strategic and operational meetings, rather than strand-based meetings. This would have
provided more opportunities for joint-working and referrals between the strands. However,
the rationale for the meetings being structured via the strands was due to the strands
coming under different investment priorities and therefore having to be reported on
separately.
Project offer
3.9 SEE was designed to offer a comprehensive programme of support for social enterprises in
the SCR. The project had three delivery strands (strands A, B, and C), underpinned by a
project management framework for partnership working, progress monitoring and
evaluation (strand D). The delivery structure is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.
Figure 3.1: SEE Strand Overview
3.10 An overview of activities under each delivery strand is provided in the table below, as
outlined in the project application form.

17 April 2019
Figure 3.2: Delivery strands and corresponding activities
Strand Key planned activities
Strand A
Awareness raising events, knowledge sharing, peer networking and other
activities to develop the social enterprise support pipeline
Strand B
Start-up accelerator workshops, specialist advice and support, and start-up
grants
Strand C
Specialist social enterprise advice, social enterprise incubators, marketing and
promotional support, and development grants
Strand D
Project management and administration, and sustainability and independent
evaluation
Delivery of support
3.11 38 per cent (16) of respondents to the online survey described the overall quality of the
support provided by SEE to be of a ‘very high quality’, whilst a further 29 per cent (12)
respondents described the support to be of a ‘reasonable quality’. 23 per cent (10) of
respondents, however, described the overall quality of support to be ‘low’, whilst the
remaining ten per cent (4) felt it was ‘too early to say’ or that they were ‘unsure’.
Respondents that were positive about the overall quality of support referred to the
Enterprise Coaches being ‘professional’, ‘helpful’, and ‘experienced’. Respondents that were
negative about the quality of support referred to the support not meeting their needs, staff
not having the necessary skills to deliver the support, and the need for more hands-on
support.
3.12 In terms of their initial expectations from accessing the project, 12 respondents from the
online enterprise survey described how they expected to get some form of financial support
through the project. This included access to a grant, support with grant applications, and
support to become investment ready. Nine respondents stated that they expected to get
support in developing a business strategy and
understanding how to implement an appropriate
business model and structure. Other respondents
referred to access to general business support, and
marketing advice.
3.13 40 per cent of enterprises stated that the support
they received completely met their expectations,
61 per cent of beneficiary
enterprises consulted through the
online feedback survey said the
support they had received
through SEE had either
‘completely met expectations ‘ or
‘partly met expectations’.

18 April 2019
whilst 21 per cent felt that it had partly met them. However, 33 per cent described how the
project did not meet their expectations, and five per cent said it was too early too
say/unsure.
3.14 A key challenge for the project was underestimating the amount of interest it was going to
generate and therefore the subsequent size of the pipeline. Initially, enquires were
approximately 50 per cent for the Accelerate and 50 per cent for the Transform strand.
However, over the course of the project the number of Transform enquires reduced (as
demand from existing social enterprises levelled off), whereas there was a steady flow of
Accelerate (start-up) enquires.
3.15 A high proportion of Accelerate enquires were at early concept stage, e.g. they had a social
idea but did not have a business model or were unlikely to be economically sustainable, and
this affected their progress through the project. Therefore, although the Accelerate pipeline
was largely, the proportion converting to outputs was lower than for Transform.
3.16 Partners referred to challenges regarding capacity and some felt this resulted in businesses
receiving varying levels of support – particularly on the Transform strand. It was suggested
that, in future, a minimum level of support should be delivered to all Transform clients.
3.17 Respondents were asked to explain their responses regarding whether the support met their
expectations. On the whole, comments received tended to either relate to those that were
particularly satisfied or unsatisfied with the support they received. Those that were satisfied
described how
• “I was more than happy with the support; it exceeded my expectations.”
• “Lots of support, knowledge and guidance. Extremely helpful.”
• “We had an excellent business coach that made us feel like we were the only client and
they wanted us to succeed as much as we do.”
3.18 When asked what the best thing about the project was, respondents referred to having
access to a dedicated advisor for support, to workshops, and to funding.
“Having a coach that can guide you and have one to one support. The workshops are
amazing too!”
3.19 Those that were unsatisfied referred to a lack of capacity within the consortium and staff
changes, which meant support was intermittent.
• “I found the input very chaotic; I was assigned a person, they left and I was assigned
someone else, they left and then I never heard anything again.”
• “I did not get the attention I deserved, and people were too busy.”

19 April 2019
• “Only had the diagnostic meeting and no contact or support was given thereafter on any
capacity.”
Project beneficiary
3.20 Enterprises were also asked what could have been improved about the SEE project.
Enterprises described how there was a need for a more ‘hands-on approach’, greater clarity
of offer, and improved communication. Respondents were asked whether they would
recommend the project to other social enterprises and those interested in social
entrepreneurship. In total, 24 (62%) respondents stated that they would recommend it,
however, eight (21%) respondents would not; seven were not sure at this stage.
3.21 The following sections focus on the project’s two business support delivery strands,
Accelerate and Transform.
Accelerate strand
3.22 The aim of the Accelerate strand was to support those interested in setting up a social
enterprise and social enterprise start-ups.
3.23 The consortium positively responded to recommendations made in the formative report and
flexed the delivery approach of this strand to better meet the needs of beneficiaries. For
example, the initial business diagnostic was revised in January 2018 to provide Enterprise
Coaches with a more in-depth understanding of a beneficiary’s business idea at an earlier
stage in the process. This helped to inform the prioritisation of activities. In addition, the
consortium added another step to the initial process – the forward support strategy had to
be reviewed by another member of the partnership; helping to support better joint-working,
and the delivery of a more effective approach.
3.24 All start-up enquires were offered access to a two-day intensive workshop programme. The
delivery of the workshops was also reviewed and changed based on beneficiary feedback
and recommendations in the formative and interim report. This included:
• A review of themes covered in the workshops – initially it involved the delivery of four
masterclass sessions including: business planning, marketing, legal structures, and
accessing social finance. This was reduced to the latter two sessions, with business
planning and marketing offered later in the customer journey. It was felt that this
approach was more appropriate as it allowed the project to prioritise understanding the
viability of beneficiaries’ business cases.
• Increase in provision in Sheffield - there was a greater demand for workshops in
Sheffield which led to more workshops being delivered in these areas than originally
planned.

20 April 2019
• Offer of one day workshops – initially the Accelerator workshops were delivered across
two days, however often those interested were limited by capacity to attend. Therefore,
the project incorporated one day workshops into the programme of activities.
3.25 In addition to the workshops, Accelerate clients also had access to additional workshops, for
example ‘business planning’ and ‘marketing’, and one-to-one support with Enterprise
Coaches. There were also examples, near the end of the project, of Accelerate clients
attending Transform events and vice versa, promoting joint working within the consortium.
3.26 Overall, Accelerate respondents to the survey were positive regarding their experience of
attending the workshops. It was noted that this approach required a lot of upfront support
and that some beneficiaries did not have a viable business idea and therefore would not
have benefited from progressing within the project. It may have been more efficient to have
a more in-depth triage process prior to beneficiaries attending the workshops.
Transform strand
3.27 The aim of the Transform strand was to provide specialist social enterprise advice to social
enterprises which had been identified as having significant growth and social impact
potential. The advice was considered to be bespoke and was mainly delivered on a one-to-
one basis. The support provided through Transform included:
• building/place-based support (which included advice and support on design, planning
and built environment, and the development of feasibility building options);
• marketing and communications support, including social media support, strategy
development and video productions for marketing and fundraising purposes; and
• general business development support including business modelling, access to finance,
governance arrangements for social enterprise, social impact assessment.
3.28 This remit was supported by the consortium, which was made up of partners with a diverse
skill base. For example, CIQA is an economic development agency with specialist knowledge
in regeneration, building-based development and creative industries.
3.29 In addition to the one-to-one support, social enterprises also had access to a series of
masterclass workshops (including: social marketing; social impact measurement; and access
to funding;) and Lunch plus events (including: community pubs, community shares and
artisan; profiling care opinion; and digital for social innovation).
3.30 Many of the Transform events were held in Sheffield. Some of the events arranged outside
of the city were cancelled due to insufficient number. This could be related to a need to
improve marketing and communication (see the ‘Beneficiary engagement’ section below)
but may also reflect travel distance and accessibility for the largest number of participants.

21 April 2019
3.31 There were no significant changes to the delivery approach for this strand over the lifetime
of the project, although examples were provided of support provision becoming more
streamlined and effective. Those social enterprises that received building/place-based
support were provided with an end report outlining the various concepts and design
outcomes alongside different funding options. This supported the sustainability of outcomes;
informing each business’ long-term plans and providing them with a document they could
share with potential investors. Concerns were raised at the interim evaluation stage that
Enterprise Coaches had been too generous and provided too many options for businesses,
reducing their overall capacity to support others. CIQA effectively responded by focusing the
reports on no more than three options, increasing its overall capacity.
3.32 Support also focused on increasing the sustainability of social enterprises. A number of
Transform clients had previously relied on grant provision to deliver activities, however the
availability of grants had reduced and therefore they were having to change the way they
worked and functioned. The Transform strand therefore supported these businesses to
‘think outside on the box’ and identify what they could monetise within their business.
3.33 Sheffield Live provided marketing and social enterprise support to Transform clients, which
included the offer of short videos (two to three minutes in length) to support fundraising and
promotional activities. Beneficiaries were able to use these videos on their websites and via
their social media channels. The main challenge in delivering this element of support was
managing expectations of clients. To support this, clients that were interested in a video had
to complete a general questionnaire on their requirements, which was followed up with a
one-to-one meeting to outline what could realistically be achieved through the project. This
was an effective way of managing expectations from the initial engagement.
Grant scheme
3.34 The project offered two types of grants for those that had either been accepted onto the
Accelerate or Transform Strand. An overview of each type of grant is provided in Figure 3.3
below.

22 April 2019
Figure 3.3: Accelerate and Transform grant overview
Accelerate grants Transform grants
- Start-up funding (including ICT and
marketing costs)
- Offering between £1,000 and £1,500 in
funding
- Available for enterprises registered
within 12 months prior to requesting
funding support
- Seed finance to support fundraising
and investment
- Offering between £1,000 and £5,000 in
funding
- Available for enterprises that had been
in existence for at least 12 months
prior to requesting the funding.
3.35 Initially the project had a plan to allocate 40 small grants to start-ups (maximum of £1,500)
from the Accelerate strand, and 20 larger grants (maximum of £5,000) to existing businesses
from the Transform strand. However, in the first 18 months of delivery it emerged that a lot
of the Accelerate clients were not grant-ready. The Project Change Request was approved to
compensate with the total number of grants to be awarded reduced from 60 to 50 and the
split changed to 20 start-up grants and 30 grants for existing social enterprises.
3.36 In the seventh and eighth call to funding, the project encouraged clients to bring their own
match funding, and in the ninth call (the last of the project) clients were required to bring
match funding if they requested more the £1,500). This adjustment was considered
reasonably successful, and enabled the project to pilot how it may be able to deliver a larger
grant scheme in the future, as the size of the grant scheme had been limited in part by the
amount of match funding provided by the partner leading the scheme.
3.37 The grant scheme was delivered by SYCF, which completed its own internal evaluation of this
element of the project and shared its report with Carney Green. At the time of the
evaluation 38 enterprises had received a grant, and total amount of grants awarded was
£96,521. A survey was sent out to 30 grant recipients, with 11 respondents. A summary of
key findings is provided below:
• 64 per cent of enterprises felt the size of the grant was appropriate to their business
needs
• 26 per cent of enterprises described the support from the SEE Enterprise Coaches to be
‘great’, 36 per cent found them to be ‘helpful’, and 27 per cent found them to be ‘okay’
• There was a mix of opinions regarding how the enterprises found the process for
submitting evidence for the grant (30% stated it was great, 20% fairly easy, 10% okay,
20% not that easy, and 20% had lots of issues)

23 April 2019
• Based on feedback from enterprises, the report recommended that there was an online
portal to access grant documents and for communication regarding match funding to be
improved
3.38 Overall, the grant element of the project had less take-up than initially envisaged. This was
compensated by an additional call for grant applications opened in January 2019.
3.39 Those that were successful in obtaining a grant had to deliver the eligible spend within 45
days of the grant being awarded. This was not considered to be sufficiently clear in the initial
guidance and therefore changes to the guidance notes were made during the project
lifetime. However, it still remained a challenge for some enterprises.
3.40 Enterprises had to obtain three quotes for all expenditure, which was often very time
consuming. Some partners questioned whether this was necessary, and whether there could
be an upper limit (e.g. only required for costs over £100).
3.41 The formative evaluation report recommended that partners consider hosting workshops for
beneficiaries on how to submit a successful application. The consortium reacted positively to
this recommendation and developed a two-hour workshop designed to guide beneficiaries
through the grant application process (timescales, application form, supporting documents
to include, and award), and informed them of the necessary components to submit a
successful application. Businesses that had started working on their application were
encouraged to bring a draft copy, enabling Enterprise Coaches to check eligibility and
highlight where more detail was required. The workshops were delivered by CM Solutions,
CIQA and Groundwork. However, some partners felt that the workshops would have
benefited from SYCF being given a more active role in the delivery of the workshops as they
had a greater insight into the application process. Some partners felt that the benefit of the
workshops was restricted by their proximity to the application deadline. More time was
required in order for enterprises to embed the learning and develop their applications.
3.42 Despite the addition of the workshops, some partners still felt that the overall quality of
applications could have been improved. There were examples of enterprises applying for
funding without their Enterprise Coach being aware, and the interim report recommended
that Enterprise Coaches should have had a greater role, in terms of signposting/referring
businesses to the grant scheme when they felt they were ready. Despite this, examples were
still provided at the summative stage of applications being submitted without Enterprise
Coaches being aware.
3.43 Partners referred to enterprises being ‘put off’ by the amount of paperwork involved in
order to make a claim, describing it as “excessive”, and “not worth the level of funding
available”. Examples were provided of enterprises disengaging with the project as a result of
the onerous grants process. Although partners felt there was a need for grants, many felt
that the process needed to be improved and streamlined.

24 April 2019
“Process was extremely time consuming and frustrating. The amount of money on offer was
minimal in comparison to the time needed to fulfil the criteria.”
Project beneficiary
3.44 Originally, the Enterprise Coaches and grants panel had limited engagement with each other
during the grants process (this disconnect was identified in the formative evaluation report).
In response to this, the lead Enterprise Coaches were given the option to provide the grants
panel with a small written narrative on their clients’ application, supporting comments and a
view on the viability of the application. This approach supported greater joint working.
Incubators
3.45 The project had planned to procure local organisations to become social enterprise
incubators. In January 2017, it issued an Invitation to Tender (“ITT”) for the delivery of ‘local
incubators’. The ITT outlined how the project was:
“…seeking to commission organisations that are able to provide a range of place-based
business support services including host desks, co-working and grow-on space, access to
ICTs, client mentoring and first line support, hosting of project related meetings and
events.”
3.46 It was intended for the incubators to increase the reach of the project, particularly in areas
that were considered hard-to-reach, whilst not duplicating the offer of existing partners.
However, this element of the project faced a number of challenges, including:
• There were delays in contracting the incubators which resulted in a significant period of
uncertainty
• The contracts were output-based, which resulted in additional paperwork that
incubators found to be onerous
• Incubators did not feel that they had a clear understanding of the whole project offer,
and were unsure what they were offering to beneficiaries that they were supporting
3.47 The incubator contracts finished in December 2018 and although some of the incubators
hosted events none had contributed outputs by that time. The approach taken was guided
by the views of the incubators at the time of contracting however a grants-based approach
might have been more successful as a means to strengthen local infrastructure.

25 April 2019
Beneficiary engagement
3.48 Respondents to the online enterprise survey were asked how they found out about the
project.1
Over one quarter (26%, 11) of respondents were referred to the project by one of
the SEE partners. Eight respondents (19%) heard about the project through a news story,
website or social media, whilst seven respondents became aware of it through an SEE poster
or leaflet, and seven via word of mouth.
3.49 The consortium was proactive in generating an initial project pipeline by hosting a launch
conference on 20 October 2016. This half day event provided attendees with the opportunity
to find out more about SEE, to discuss the challenges and opportunities for social enterprise,
to hear about local social enterprise success stories, and to network. The launch event was
followed by a series of roadshow events held in Bolsover, Chesterfield, Bassetlaw, North East
Derbyshire and Derbyshire Dales. This was viewed as a key activity in ensuring that interest
was generated outside of Sheffield.
3.50 Since the initial launch conference, the project hosted a further two annual conferences in
November 2017 and 2018. These were viewed as celebration events, showcasing case stories
and the positive impacts the project had delivered to enterprises, helping to promote the
project and raise awareness of social enterprise in the region. The conferences included
drop-in surgeries (covering legal structures, and funding) providing on the spot, one-to-one
support. Partners felt the conferences were a beneficial activity but they required more
promotion, at an earlier stage and additional lead in time to assign roles to partners.
3.51 Initial marketing activities were viewed positively. A wealth of marketing materials was
produced, including 1,000 flyers, 1,000 pens, and 50 posters. These were distributed to
libraries, community centres, and partner organisations, as well as being disseminated at
events. A dedicated project website was also set-up. Some partners felt that the website had
not been used to its full potential and described how it was intermittently updated.
3.52 As the demand for the project was higher than expected, there was less of an emphasis on
marketing as it progressed. Despite this, partners felt that the overall marketing could be
improved. It was felt that more could have been done to share the stories of enterprises
supported through the project. Some partners suggested there needed to be more guidance
(for partners) on marketing and the sharing of promotional materials. As it was a consortium,
more traction around that project could have been generated by helping to disseminate
materials, e.g. the films produced by Sheffield Live and case studies.
1
Based on 42 respondents

26 April 2019
3.53 Social media presence was described as ‘intermittent’, as a result of staffing changes. A
marketing advisor was employed by Sheffield Live who helped to coordinate the overall
promotion of the project and social enterprise. However, the advisor left in March 2018,
which left a gap in social media capacity and direction. This role was not replaced with the
responsibilities being picked up by existing staff.
Management
3.54 The project had monthly Project Management Group meetings with the lead representatives
of each partner. There were also subgroups which met on a bimonthly or more frequent
basis for the Promote strand, the Accelerate strand and the Transform strand.
3.55 The Project Management Group and strand meetings approach enabled the opportunity for
both strategic and operational discussion, yet there were mixed views on the amount and
frequency of meetings. Those that were happy with the frequency described how, as SEE
was delivered by a consortium and partners were working on a range of projects, the
structure ensured time was allocated to focus on the project. In contrast, others felt that the
structure of the meetings resulted in duplication.
3.56 Most partners were happy with the overall management of the project, although felt that
communication could have been improved, particularly with regards to responsiveness to
email queries and requests for the pipeline. A number of partners described how they were
frustrated to receive paperwork to review too close to the meetings, not allowing them
enough time to prepare.
3.57 Information sharing was limited by not having an online CRM system. Although this was an
initial intention the project sighted challenges with GDPR and identifying a suitable system. It
was suggested, for future projects, that a cloud-based solution be developed.
3.58 An abbreviated spreadsheet of the project pipeline was sent to members of the project
management team prior to each meeting, including reference number, contact name, name
of organisation, when they entered the project, and the name of the Enterprise Coach to
whom they had been assigned. As there was not an online system for client management,
some partners felt that this impacted on the timeliness of information.

27 April 2019
4. Progress
4.1 This section outlines Project performance against profiled ‘point in time’ expenditure and
output targets at the time of the summative assessment, performance against lifetime
targets at the time of the summative assessment, and projected performance against targets
at the end of the Project (considering gross and net performance).
Project performance to date against profiled targets
4.2 It was intended for the project to be delivered over a 36-month timescale, from July 2016 to
June 2019. Although the project was agreed in principle with the DCLG (now MHCLG), CM
Solutions did not receive a signed contract until 23 November 2016. Despite this, the
consortium proceeded from 1 July 2016 with delivery at risk, to prevent a delay having a
negative impact on performance. This was however at a slower pace than originally intended
due to a more cautious approach to expenditure and commitment of staff in order to
mitigate the risk. The consortium began holding monthly partnership meetings in April 2016
after acceptance of the Outline Application. Early meetings were focused on considering and
approving consortium policies, marketing strategy, reporting documents and subcontracts.
4.3 Despite the contract still not being signed, the consortium held a public launch event on the
29 October 2016, which was followed by a series of roadshow events. Although activity
commenced, the delay in signing the contract meant that some partners did not have full
capacity to deliver the activities from the initial outset. Understandably, partners were
reluctant to advertise for new staff, where needed, when a contract was not in place.
4.4 Figure 4.1 below outlines performance to date. This shows that the project had overachieved
the number of enterprises receiving support, and had either achieved or was close to
achieving the majority of the remaining output targets. The project had not yet claimed any
C28 or C29 outputs, but it was acknowledged that these outputs take longer to be achieved.

28 April 2019
Figure 4.1: Project performance to date (based on latest claim data - 1
October 2018 to 31 March 2019)
Output
Point in
time PCR
target
Achieved
to date
Percentage
achieved
against
point in
time target
C1: Number of enterprises receiving support 110 111 101%
C2: Number of enterprises receiving grants 40 39 97%
C4: Number of enterprises receiving non-financial
support
102 89 87%
C5: Number of new enterprises supported 40 36 90%
C6: Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (grants)
£51,775 £51,808 100%
C8: Employment increase in supported enterprises 42 41 98%
C28: Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the market products
7 5 71%
C29: Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the firm products
10 0 0
P11: Number of potential entrepreneurs assisted to be
enterprise ready
85 74 87%
P13: Number of enterprises receiving information,
diagnostic and brokerage support
118 127 108%
Expenditure £1,980,423 £1,797,220 91%
Project performance to date against lifetime targets
4.5 Figure 4.2 shows project performance, based on claim data to the end of December 2018,
against its lifetime targets. The project had already overachieved the number of enterprises
receiving information, diagnostic and brokerage support (P13 output target).

29 April 2019
Figure 4.2: Performance against lifetime target
Lifetime target –
original
Lifetime target –
adjusted (as
outlined in PCR)
Percentage
achieved against
lifetime target
adjusted
C1: Number of enterprises
receiving support
120 125 89%
receiving grants
60 50 78%
receiving non-financial support
120 120 74%
C5: Number of new enterprises
supported
50 50 72%
C6: Private investment matching
public support to enterprises
(grants)
67,200 60000 86%
C8: Employment increase in
supported enterprises
60 60 68%
supported to introduce new to the
market products
10 11 45%
supported to introduce new to the
firm products
15 15 0
P11: Number of potential
entrepreneurs assisted to be
enterprise ready
100 100 74%
P13: Number of enterprises
receiving information, diagnostic
and brokerage support
120 120 127%
Expenditure (total) £2,322,456 £2,162,462 83%
Projected final performance against lifetime targets
4.6 Figure 4.3 below shows the project’s spend and output performance to date and its
projected performance to the end of the project. As this summative assessment has been
conducted prior to the completion of the project, the Project Lead provided output
projections to the end of the project lifetime. The projections are based on a review of the

30 April 2019
pipeline and throughput to the end of March 2019 and include grant awards made in the
ninth and final grant call in March 2019.
4.7 Figure 4.3 shows that the project is set to achieve or overachieve on output targets. It is set
to considerably overachieve on the number of:
• New enterprises being supported (C5)
• Enterprises receiving information, diagnostic and brokerage support (P13)
Figure 4.3: Spend and Output Performance
Targets
Projected Performance at Project
Closure
Original Adjusted No. % of target
C1: Number of
enterprises
receiving
support
120 125 131 105%
C2: Number of
enterprises
receiving grants
60 50 52 104%
C4: Number of
enterprises
receiving non-
financial support
120 120 122 102%
C5: Number of
new enterprises
supported
50 50 60 120%
C6: Private
investment
matching public
support to
enterprises
(grants)
£67,200 £60,000 £59,868 100%

31 April 2019
C8: Employment
increase in
supported
enterprises
60 60 62 103%
C28: Number of
enterprises
supported to
introduce new
to the market
products
10 11 11 100%
C29: Number of
enterprises
supported to
introduce new
to the firm
products
15 15 15 100%
P11: Number of
potential
entrepreneurs
assisted to be
enterprise ready
100 100 100 100%
P13: Number of
enterprises
receiving
information,
diagnostic and
brokerage
support
120 120 131 109%
Expenditure
(total)
£2,322,456 £2,162,462 £1,957,220 91%

32 April 2019
5. Impact
5.1 This section explores the impact of SEE project on the businesses engaged and the project
partners, and also the economic impact attributable to the project. It draws on partners’
experience of delivering the project and businesses’ experience of engaging with it (captured
through the online enterprise survey).
Impact on businesses supported
5.2 Survey respondents were asked whether their social enterprise had increased the number of
full-time equivalent jobs, safeguarded existing jobs, or increased turnover since their initial
engagement with the SEE project, or whether they expected to achieve any of these impacts
over the next year. Figure 5.1 below shows that seven enterprises (32%) had already
increased the number of full time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the businesses and 12 (48%) had
safeguarded existing jobs. A further 16 (73%) enterprises expected to increase the number of
FTE jobs in the business in the next year and 14 (56%) expected to safeguard existing jobs.
5.3 Of all respondents, 14 (47%) respondents had already increased their turnover and 13 (45%)
had introduced a new product or service (to the business or to the market).
Figure 5.1: Enterprise achievements since initial engagement, and expected
achievements over the next year

33 April 2019
5.4 Survey respondents were asked the extent to which the support they had accessed through
the project had enabled these achievements to be realised. Selecting ‘0’ would mean the
project had nothing to do with the achievements, whilst selecting ‘100’ would mean the
achievements were wholly attributable to the project (100%). The average number of all
responses was 33, with a median of 22.2
Seven respondents attributed 60 per cent of more
of their achievements to the support received by the SEE project.
5.5 Survey respondents were asked whether their social enterprise had contributed to the
following measures of social impact: improved livelihoods, strengthened communities,
improved health and wellbeing, environmental improvement, increased skills and
capabilities, increased equality of opportunity, reduced social or economic inclusion, better
access to information and services, and/or strengthened diversity of cultural expression. The
findings are summarised in Figure 5.2 below.
Figure 5.2: Enterprise achievements against measures of social impact since
initial engagement, and expected achievements over the next year
5.6 Figure 5.2 demonstrates the following:
2
Based on 24 responses

34 April 2019
• 17 (63%)3
enterprises felt that they had increased skills and capability
• 16 (59%)4
enterprises felt that they had improved livelihoods
• 15 (68%)5
enterprises felt that they had improved health and wellbeing
• 15 (56%)6
enterprises felt that they had reduced social or economic exclusion
• Only four (22%)7
enterprises felt their activities had resulted in environmental
improvement, however 15 expected to achieve this in the next year
5.7 As with the economic impacts, survey respondents were asked the extent to which the
support they had accessed through the project had enabled these achievements to be
realised. The average number of all responses was 35, with a median of 30.8
Nine
respondents attributed 50 per cent or more of their social impact achievements to the
support they had received through the project.
Gross and net additional employment
5.8 In line with the summative assessment guidance, this subsection provides an assessment of
the net impact of the SEE project (to the SCR geographical region). Net outputs are
calculated by accounting for deadweight, displacement, and leakage. The only SEE output
indicator relevant for a gross to net calculation is employment increase (C8); as this is a
specific economic impact.
Deadweight
5.9 Deadweight refers to the total outputs created by the project that would have happened
anyway, regardless of the SEE project. Deadweight in this case would therefore refer to
employment increase/jobs created by the businesses supported by the SEE project that
would have occurred without its support (either on their own or with alternative support).
5.10 To estimate deadweight, beneficiary survey data was utilised. Beneficiaries were asked:
Since your engagement with the SEE project: a) has your business already experienced any
of the following achievements:
3
Based on 27 responses
4
5
6
7
8

35 April 2019
• Created jobs
• Safeguarded existing jobs
• Increased turnover
• Introduced new products or services
b) Do you expect your business to achieve any of the following over the next year?
5.11 Of those businesses that had either experienced these benefits, or expected to achieve them
over the next year, the average rate of attribution of these to the support provided by the
Project was 33 per cent. From this, a 67 per cent deadweight proxy was identified. This is a
relatively high value for deadweight. Given this, and also considering that it is based on a
survey of 46 respondents (of which 22 answered this question), it is appropriate to also
consider established literature regarding deadweight. The Homes and Communities Agency
(HCA) Additionality Guide (2014) provides a deadweight ready reckoner for business support
programmes of 26 per cent. Hence, a halfway point has been used between the deadweight
proxy identified in the survey and the ready reckoner from the HCA, providing a proxy value
of 47 per cent.
Displacement
5.12 Displacement is the proportion of outputs generated from an intervention that reduce
outputs elsewhere in the region (i.e. where the benefits to businesses within the project
were to the detriment of businesses that did not access support). A low ready reckoner for
displacement (25%)9
has been selected for SEE, as the project was focused specifically on
social enterprises, and there was no other business support project specifically targeted at
this group.
Leakage
5.13 Leakage is the measure used to define the proportion of outputs that benefit individuals and
organisations outside of the target geography. As the SEE project was specifically targeted at
social enterprises within the SCR region it was likely to have minimal leakage associated with
its outputs. Therefore, a low ready reckoner of ten per cent10
has been applied. The ten per
9
This ready reckoner is taken from the HCA (2014) Additionality Guide. ‘Low’ means that there are expected to
be some displacement effects, although only to a limited extent.
10
HCA (2014) Additionality Guide, low leakage ready reckoner – this means that the majority of benefits will go
to people living within the target area/target group.

36 April 2019
cent figure considers the potential induced economic impacts from new employees (of the
jobs created) which would have occurred outside the SCR region.
Gross and net additional employment assessment
5.14 Figure 5.3 below utilises the above consideration of deadweight, displacement and leakage
to provide an analysis of the gross and net additional economic impacts in relation to jobs
created, specifically to the SCR region. This is based on the gross impact projected for the
lifetime of the project.
Figure 5.3: Gross and Net Additional Employment based on projected project
performance
Impact indicator Additionality Factor Measure Adjustment
C8 – Employment
increase in supported
enterprise
Gross impact
projected
62 n/a
Deadweight 33 47%
Displacement 25 25%
Leakage 22 10%
5.15 Figure 5.3 shows that the project will directly result in 22 net additional FTE jobs to the SCR
region.
Multipliers
5.16 Multiplier effects reflect further economic value associated with the additional income to
those employed or safeguarded as a direct result of an intervention and with local supplier
purchases and long-term development effects. The multiplier effects of business support
projects like SEE are well established in the research literature. Guidance refers the use of a
low multiplier ready reckoner of 1.3 at the regional level.11
Figure 5.4 below uses this to
show the total net effects at regional level when incorporating the economic multiplier. This
shows that the total net effect of the project is 29 FTE jobs created in the SCR.
11
HCA (2014) Additionality Guide, low composite multiplier (regional level) means a limited local supply
linkage and induced or income effects.

37 April 2019
Figure 5.4: Total net effects
Gross impact
projected
Net additional Multiplier
Total net
effects
C8 –
Employment
increase in
supported
enterprise
62 22 1.3 29
Progress against logic model
5.17 This subsection explores the extent to which the project achieved objectives and outcomes
related to its logic model.
5.18 The overall objective of the project was to:
“…provide sector specific support for social enterprises referred from the SCR Growth Hub
and other pipelines and will contribute to awareness raising and stimulation of social
entrepreneurship throughout the SCR.
5.19 The project had three outcomes:
1. Increased awareness and understanding of social enterprise in the SCR including having
particular regard to access and opportunity for disadvantaged communities
4. Establishment of new social enterprises in the SCR, including independent start-ups,
charities establishing new trading arms and public sector spin-outs.
5. Sustainable growth of existing social enterprises in the SCR including those with high
growth potential and larger social enterprises with capacity to expand
Increased awareness
5.20 Overall, partners felt that the project had supported an increase in awareness and
understanding of social enterprise in SCR. It was acknowledged that awareness was likely to
have been disproportionately increased in Sheffield in contrast to the more rural areas
where the project had less of a presence. Awareness was increased through the annual
conference events, Lunch Plus events (which were open to anyone, i.e. you did not have to
be enrolled on the project), exposure on Sheffield Live (the Business Live show has featured
lots of social enterprises), videos Sheffield Live produced for clients, and engagement with
other events (including Shefest (which aimed to showcase and empower women in the SCR).

38 April 2019
5.21 The project increased access and opportunity for disadvantaged groups by supporting
organisations that engaged with these groups. For example, Sheffield Live engaged with the
Refugee Council and worked with a group of women that wanted to set-up their own
catering business. The project also engaged with organisations supporting unemployed BME
groups to help them establish financial independence. The project delivered tailored
workshops to these groups, introducing them to enterprise and financial models. These
workshops were delivered in small groups, and were hosted by the organisations supporting
the hard-to-reach groups. This approach was considered a success and had led to a number
of clients progressing from the workshops to one-to-one support with Enterprise Coaches.
5.22 It was noted that in order to increase awareness in future projects, it may be beneficial to
incorporate a regional network of peer support among social enterprises. Sheffield already
has a well establish membership group called Sheffield Social Enterprise Network (SSEN)
which has been supported by the project. The consortium is keen to work with SSEN in
future to create an integrated approach to marketing and promotion of social enterprise
across the region.
Establishment of new social enterprises
5.23 The project expects to slightly overachieve on the number of new enterprises supported
(51). Partners referred to how the project has supported a broad range of social enterprises.
It would be beneficial to undertake some sectorial and demographic analysis to see whether
there are any gaps in terms of sectors and hard-to-reach groups and geographies with new
enterprises (this data was not available to the evaluators).
Sustainable growth
5.24 The project is expected to achieve its output target for employment increase in supported
enterprises. Some partners did not feel they had sufficient insight to understand whether it
had led to sustainable growth and that the project should follow-up Transform clients to
understand whether they were still trading and whether they faced any challenges.
5.25 It was acknowledged that some existing social enterprises were struggling due to the
reduction in public funding available, and faced challenges in trying to diversify their income
and trading activity. The Enterprise Coaches had been able to work with these businesses to
revisit their business plans and help monetise their activities, supporting sustainable growth.

39 April 2019
6. Value for Money
6.1 This section draws upon findings within the progress and impact sections of the report to
provide analysis of the Project’s VfM.
Cost per output
6.2 Cost per outputs were calculated using the project expenditure data divided by the number
of project outputs – based on data provided by CM Solutions. The same calculation was used
for ERDF-only expenditure.
Original (pre-PCR) profiled cost per outputs
6.3 The original expenditure profile included total project costs of £2,322,456, of which
£1,347,017 was contributed by the ERDF. When calculating this against the original profiled
outputs (see Figure 4.2) it provides the cost per C1 output figures shown in Figure 6.1 below.
This shows an expected cost per business assist of £11,225 (for ERDF-only expenditure).
Figure 6.1: Profiled original cost per output
Output
Profiled cost per output (all
expenditure)
Profiled cost per output
(ERDF-only expenditure)
C1: No of enterprises
receiving support
£19,354 £11,225
Note: Figures are to the nearest pound
Projected actual cost per output
6.4 Figure 6.2 below uses the projected final achieved expenditure and outputs to calculate the
projected cost per output over the lifetime of the Project.

40 April 2019
Figure 6.2: Projected actual cost per output based on projected expenditure
and gross outputs
Output
Projected achieved cost per
output (all expenditure)
Projected achieved cost per
output (ERDF-only
expenditure)
C1: No of enterprises
receiving support
£14,941 £8,715
Note: Figures are to the nearest pound.
Cost per output value for money
6.5 Figure 6.2 shows that the projected achieved cost per output (ERDF-only expenditure) is
£8,715. This is considerably lower than the profiled cost per output (ERDF-only expenditure)
of £11,225. Therefore, the project demonstrates significant value for money.
Benchmarking
6.6 Figure 6.3 below provides benchmarks from two recent business support evaluations
covering specialist and generic business support. It is important to note that these projects
did not specifically target social enterprises. SEE is most similar to Project 1 which provided
sector specific support however it had a higher cost per business assist output, £12,671
compared to £8,715. Project 2 had a considerably lower cost per business assist when
compared to SEE however, this project provided generic support rather than the tailored and
specialist support (e.g. building and video marketing) available through SEE which is more
costly.
Figure 6.3: Benchmark for business assist costs
Project description Cost per business assist (ERDF-only funding)
Project 1 provided sector specific tailored
support to improve SME business
competitiveness, facilitate business
investment and support R&D activities.
£12,671
Project 2 facilitated the generic delivery of
business support.
£2,791
Note: these projects have been anonymised

41 April 2019
Economy, efficiency and effectiveness
6.7 VfM can also be explored with regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Specifically,
these relate to:
• Economy: the careful use of resources to save expense, time or effort (what is spent).
o Existing social enterprises were provided with tailored support focused on
increasing their sustainability (e.g. offering building solutions, and marketing),
rather than generic support through workshops.
o It was noted that the project could have benefited from having a more intensive
enterprise diagnostic prior to Accelerate clients taking part in the two-day
intensive workshop programme. This was because at the end of the two-days it
was identified that some clients did not have a viable business idea and
therefore were unlikely to progress through the project.
o It was acknowledged that, initially, some clients received a disproportionate
amount of support in comparison to others with a negative impact on the
capacity of some partners. Lessons were learnt during the lifetime of the project
and actions were put in place to cap the level of support enterprises received.
• Efficiency: delivering the same level of service for less cost, time or effort (how the
money is spent in terms of delivering the service).
o The project reduced the length of the workshops, identifying the sessions that
were most suited to start-ups based on feedback. It then provided further
‘masterclass’ sessions which were available to the clients as they progressed
through the project.
• Effectiveness: delivering the same level of service or getting a better return for the
same amount of expense, time or effort (what returns are provided by the money
spent).
o The project implemented a grant scheme workshop with the aim of increasing
the quality of grant applications. These workshops were viewed positively,
although would have benefited from greater promotion and earlier timing.

42 April 2019
7. Conclusions and lessons learnt
7.1 In line with summative assessment guidance, this section summarises the Project’s strengths
and weaknesses, and also highlights specific lessons learnt for: the grant recipient/project
delivery body; those designing and implementing similar interventions; and policy makers.
Project strengths
7.2 Specific strengths of the SEE project are summarised below:
• The project responded to a need: The need was identified in the call for applications and
further evidenced by the consortium in their proposal which identified that there was no
dedicated SCR level entry point for specialist social enterprise support, and therefore it
was the intention for the project to fill this gap. The SCR Independent Economic Review
(2013) also highlighted an enterprise deficit within the region, evidenced by low business
density, and a low propensity of the local population to start new businesses or to
register for self-employment. Over the lifetime of the project, a pipeline of over 600
enterprises had been developed. Engagement was steady over the lifetime of the project
and therefore it was considered that there was an ongoing need for this type of support.
• Design informed by evidence and partners experience of delivering similar projects:
The ‘State of Social Enterprise Survey’ (Social Enterprise UK, 2015) identified that access
to funding and finance was a key barrier for those interested in setting-up a social
enterprise, and existing social enterprises looking to grow. Therefore, the project
incorporated a grant element as an additional incentive. Partners also had previous
experience of delivering similar ERDF projects which informed the design.
• Launch conference and subsequent roadshow events: The launch conference was an
effective way of generating initial interest in the project. The series of roadshow events
across the region helped to demonstrate that the support was not limited to Sheffield
and covered the whole SCR area.
• The creation of new enterprises: The project was projected to support the creation of
60 new enterprises.
• Helped social enterprises increase their presence: The videos produced by Sheffield Live
for businesses were seen to be a unique project offer which had helped to enterprises
advertise their services, access additional funding, and increase their social media
presence. It also contributed to an increased awareness of social enterprise in the SCR.
• Provision of building design advice: The provision of building design advice was also
viewed as a unique offer, which often would have been inaccessible to social enterprises

43 April 2019
due to cost barriers. This helped enterprises to increase their accessibility and
sustainability (e.g. for example by creating more usable space).
• Opportunities to network: The project provided those interested in setting up a social
enterprise, and existing social enterprises the opportunity to network through
workshops, Lunch Plus events, and the annual conferences. This provided enterprises
with the opportunity to form relationships with one another, provide support, and
identify opportunities for collaborations.
• Increased awareness of social enterprise and social enterprise as a business model: The
project increased awareness of social enterprise through programmes specifically
focused on social enterprise delivered by Sheffield Live (both radio and TV), case stories
and presentations, attendance at different events (e.g. SheFest), and through
engagement with organisations supporting hard-to-reach groups.
• Increased access and opportunity for disadvantaged groups: By working with
organisations supporting disadvantaged groups, the project had helped increased
understanding of social enterprise as a business model. The project delivered tailored
workshops to these groups introducing them to enterprise and how it can be financed.
This led to a number of clients progressing from the workshops to one-to-one support
with Enterprise Coaches.
• Delivered by social enterprises: All members of the consortium were social businesses,
this meant they were closer to their target client group, understood the challenges they
faced, and could draw on their own experiences.
• Partnership working: On the whole the partnership worked well together. Partners
described how they had a shared purpose and a drive to support social enterprises.
• Beneficiaries would recommend the project to other social enterprises: 62 per cent of
online survey respondents would recommend the project to other social enterprises.
• Responsive to feedback from clients and evaluation findings: The project flexed the
delivery of the project in response to feedback and recommendations. This included
revision of the initial business diagnostic to provide business advisors with a more in-
depth understanding of a beneficiary’s business idea at an earlier stage in the process.
• Flexibility between the strands: Although there was a specific strand for those
interested in social enterprise and start-ups; and existing social enterprises, there were
also examples, where the relevance was identified, of Accelerate clients attending
Transform events and vice versa, promoting joint working within the consortium.
• Diverse and specialist skills base of the partners: The consortium was made up of
partners with a diverse skills base. This included specific building expertise of CIQA, the
video and marketing skills of Sheffield Live, and grants expertise of SYCF.

44 April 2019
• Supported enterprises to deliver social outcomes: The project supported enterprises to
deliver social impact outcomes in the SCR. For example:
o 63% of enterprises felt that they had increased skills and capability;
o 59% of enterprises felt that they had improved livelihoods;
o 68% enterprises felt that they had improved health and wellbeing; and
o 56% of enterprises felt that they had reduced social or economic exclusion.
Areas for improvement
7.3 Whilst the Project overall was a success, the following represents potential improvement
areas:
• No cloud-based CRM system: The project shared information on the pipeline via an
Excel spreadsheet prior to project management meetings. There was a need to access
point in time information on clients to ensure that support was not duplicated.
• Customer journey: Clients were referred between strands but there was not a clear
process for checking businesses were being supported by the organisation they had been
referred to. On occasion, clients were not picked up and subsequently disengaged with
the project.
• Overall marketing and social media presence: Social media presence was described as
intermittent partly as a result of staffing changes. A marketing advisor was employed by
Sheffield Live who helped to coordinate the overall promotion of the project and
increasing awareness of social enterprise. However, the advisor left in March 2018 and
had left a gap in social media capacity and direction. This role was not replaced.
• Timely information sharing: Some partners referred to receiving the minutes and other
meetings papers too close to the meeting with insufficient time to review in advance.
• Timely promotion of events: Some partners felt that enterprises were not given enough
notice of events and this affected attendance, particularly the third annual conference.
• Varied levels of satisfaction regarding the support received: 38 per cent described it to
be of a very high quality, a further 29 per cent respondents described the support to be
of a reasonable quality, whilst 23 per cent described it to be of a low quality.
• Meeting expectations of clients: 40 per cent of enterprises stated that the project had
met their expectations, whilst 21 per cent felt that it had only partly met them, whilst 33
per cent stated that it had not met their expectations.

45 April 2019
• Relationship with the Growth Hub: The project was the main conduit for social
enterprise support in the region; there was no other targeted provision. The visibility of
project within the Growth Hub offer could have been more integrated.
• Capacity of partners Six months into the project the consortium had more enquires than
it could immediately handle. Businesses that were more proactive with requests for
support tended to get more, and benefited from the project disproportionately.
• Geographical scope: CVP went into voluntary liquidation in January 2018, and therefore
the consortium reduced from seven to six partners for remaining project lifetime. This
resulted in a loss of the project’s connectivity to that part of the region (Bolsover). The
aim of the incubators was to increase the overall geographical scope however, due to a
number of challenges the incubators delivery was limited. It was also acknowledged that
the majority of events were delivered from Sheffield; partners described that events that
were arranged outside of the city were sometimes cancelled due to a lack of interest.
• Limited time for beneficiaries to implement learning: The turnaround time between
grant workshops and grant application deadline was short which limited the amount of
time for beneficiaries to amend their applications based on what they had learnt.
Lessons learnt
7.4 This section outlines a series of lessons learnt for consideration by three different audiences,
as required within the summative assessment guidelines.
Lessons learnt for the Consortium
7.5 At the time of the evaluation, the consortium had submitted a project extension proposal
and these lessons can be used to inform future activities delivered by the consortium:
• Ongoing need: There was an ongoing need for business support targeted at social
enterprises, this was demonstrated through the size of the pipeline and the steady flow
of enquires over the project lifetime.
• Review activities: To review activities delivered by the project to ensure that any new
project meets the needs of the enterprises that require social enterprise business
support.
• Opportunities for joint working: To map the customer journey and identify and
implement processes to support joint working.
• Review support available to individuals with an early concept social enterprise idea:
After the workshops it was identified that a number of Accelerate clients were at very
early concept stage and did not have a viable business model. Consider how to best

46 April 2019
identify these individuals (e.g. through a more in-depth diagnostic interview), whether
attendance at the workshops is appropriate, and whether any other form of support
should be provided.
• Set expectations of support from the outset: After the initial diagnostic with enterprises
develop an action plan, outlining what support they will receive through the project and
associated timescales, and identify how this will meet their needs. Build in review
meetings with enterprises to measure progress against the action plan and review
suitability of objectives as they progress.
• Explore opportunity for beneficiaries providing match-funding for future grant
schemes: This was piloted through this project, and would enable a larger, more
sustainable grant scheme to be delivered.
• Explore opportunity to work with place-based, community organisations through
grants: The consortium should consider setting up a grant strand targeted at place-
based, community organisations to provide business support and tackle local challenges.
This would support expanding the geographical reach of the consortium.
• Review opportunities to develop a regional peer support network: Sheffield already has
a well establish membership group called Sheffield City Social Enterprise Network. The
consortium should continue to explore opportunities to work with the SSEN to create an
integrated approach to marketing and promotion social enterprise across the region.
• Review sustainability of impact: The consortium should set-up a tracking scheme,
whereby they follow-up with beneficiaries to understand whether they are facing any
additional challenges and whether they require any further support.
Lessons learnt for those designing and implementing similar
interventions
7.6 A high proportion of the above lessons learnt are relevant to other organisations interested
in designing and implementing similar interventions. Additional lessons learnt include:
• Managing expectations of beneficiaries: One of the main challenges faced by the
project was managing the expectations of clients. This can be overcome by clearly
setting expectations from the outset in the initial meeting and developing an action plan
outlining support and associated timescales, which progress is subsequently monitored
against.
• Delivery of launch events: Launch events helped to generate interest and excitement
around a project and develop an initial pipeline.
• Engagement with hard-to-reach group: When targeting hard-to-reach groups reach-out
and develop relationships with grass-roots organisations that are directly supporting

Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment

Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment

Similar to Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (6)

Social Enterprise Exchange - Summative Assessment